CHAKKITTAPARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,CALICUT vs. ITO WARD 2(1), CALICUT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) dated 11.11.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
The appellant is a Primary Agricultural Credit Co — operative Society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members. Hence it is eligible for deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) accordingly, the appellant claimed deduction in the appeal petition. However, the CIT (Appeals) erred in not allowing the eligible deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 2. The errors happened in the ITR was not due to the mistake of the appellant. It was happened due to a software error in the computation package. The appellant had uploaded the ITR using the computation
ITA No.160/Coch/2023 Chakkittapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Calicut Page 2 of 5 package of TAXPRO IT SOFTWARE developed by Chartered Information System Private Limited, Nagpur. Though the appellant had duly filed the clause -j of Schedule VIA in Part -C in the ITR, due to software error, the following consequences had been happened: - • Though in the Schedule -VIA of the ITR deduction u/s 80P Rs.27,64,541/- had been duly entered, the same has not been found automatically filled by the software in the column 12 (a) and 12(b) of PART B- TI Computation of total income in the ITR. • However, total deduction u/s 80P has been found automatically filled in the column 12(c) of PART B- TI Computation of total income. • In the CPC order, the claim for 80P has been rejected on the ground that the appellant had not filled VIA in PART B- TI Computation of total income. • The rectification request was also rejected by the CPC and ITO Ward 2(1) Kozhikode, stating that there is no mistake apparent on the order of the CPC. • The appeal was also dismissed by the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, stating that the appellant has not furnished evidence relating to the proper filing of the claim of deduction under Chapter -VIA with the further observation that without such proof of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), the CPC/ AO could not have allowed this claim. 3. Further, in the light of the judgments of the High Courts of Kerala, Society in the case of The Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT. (ITA No. 212 of 2013) the appellant has reason to believe that deduction u/s 80P ought to have been allowed. 4. For these and other grounds that may be permitted to be furnished at the time of heating of the appeal, it is humbly prayed that the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) may be set aside and grant deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) to the appellant.
ITA No.160/Coch/2023 Chakkittapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Calicut Page 3 of 5 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Credit Co — operative Society engaged in extending credit facilities to its members. On 07-10-2015, the Assessee filed its return of. income for A. Y. 2015-16 declaring nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.27,64,541/- income from banking business u/s 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Act. On 29/08/2616, the return was processed by the CPC and intimation 143(1) of the Act was issued rejecting the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. On 21-11-2016 the Assessee filed a rectification request to the CPC claiming the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. On 12-12-2016, the CPC passed the rectification order rejecting the request for rectification. Aggrieved by the CPC order, on 01/02/2017, the Assessee filed another rectification request to the ITO, Ward 2(1) Kozhikode, who is having the jurisdiction over the assessee. On 18-07-2017, The ITO Ward-2(1) Kozhikode had issued the order u/s 154 of the Act rejected the application for rectification of the order of the CPC on the grounds that there is no mistake apparent on the assessment order of the CPC. On 30-11-2017, appeal before the CIT (Appeals), Kozhikode had been filed. On 11- 11-2022, the appeal order was passed by CIT(Appeals), NFAC, rejecting the claim u/s 80P of the Act. Against this assessee is in appeal before us.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. The ld. D.R. appraised the facts of the case and also legal provisions. Admittedly, in this case, there was a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed a condonation petition explaining the delay as follows:
ITA No.160/Coch/2023 Chakkittapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Calicut Page 4 of 5
We have carefully gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee. As seen from the above reasons advanced by assessee, we find that there is a good and sufficient reason in filing the appeal belatedly before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the short delay of 48 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4.1 In this case, the ld. AO has denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P of the Act while processing the return u/s
ITA No.160/Coch/2023 Chakkittapara Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Calicut Page 5 of 5 143(1) of the Act dated 29.8.2016. Against this assessee filed rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act on 1.12.2017, which has been rejected vide order dated 18.7.2017. As rightly pointed out by the ld. D.R. assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be made for disallowing the deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80P of the Act as the authority to make such assessment has been conferred on to the CPC vide insertion of section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2021, which reads as follows: (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C- Deductions in respect of certain incomes”, if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139”
4.2 Being so, the assessment year involved herein is 2015-16 and the CPC have no such power to make such assessment with reference to section 80P of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition made by ld. AO on this count. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Soundararajan K.) (Chandra Poojari) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Bangalore, Dated 14th May, 2024. VG/SPS
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
